The Death Penalty or Life Meaning Life

[MMI]

Good job, denuseri! A lot of good information.


This is something I've been saying for a long time. Nice to know that there are statistics to back me up. I'll have to check up on them.


This reinforces my comments about criminals being less active when they know there is a risk of armed resistance.

Thanks for the info!

It seems obvious that people who fear another person is armed will be less inclined to attack. The stats will prove nothing but the obvious. However, you surely want to move away from the Gun Law of the old frontiers, where the survivor was right and the dead man was in the wrong, don't you.

Only recently, I discovered that the UK is more violent than USA or South Africa. Yet there is no real demand here for the right to carry guns or other weapons in public, and if there were a referendum, I bet a pound to a penny that the vote would be against. In fact, it is against the law to carry any offensive weapon in public.

OK, we might get hit with a bat, or knifed, but we perceive the danger is far less here than American scaremongers such as the NRA whine about over there.

[Thorne]

you surely want to move away from the Gun Law of the old frontiers, where the survivor was right and the dead man was in the wrong, don't you.

No, of course not. As I have said, ALL such incidents must be investigated as crimes. But imprisoning the surviving victim for defending himself, even lethally, is not the answer, either.

In fact, it is against the law to carry any offensive weapon in public.

What is considered an "offensive" weapon? A knife? What about a sword? Or a cricket bat?

OK, we might get hit with a bat, or knifed, but we perceive the danger is far less here than American scaremongers such as the NRA whine about over there.

And yet, by your own admission the crime rate in the UK is higher than here in the US. And some things I've read suggest that the incidence of gun crimes in the UK have been rising steadily since the gun ban went into effect. Can you confirm or deny this?

[DuncanONeil]

You know the first time I went to Japan and interacted with the people there. like anywhere else they asked where I came from. When I told them they would immediately put there hands up one behind the other with the lead hand index finger point out away from. they then swung this configuration back and forth accompanied by the vocalization rat-ta-tat-tat-tat. Giving the implication that they understood that drive-by machine-gunnings continued to occur in Chicago in spite of the fact that it was 1969.

You present the same kind of misunderstanding with comments like;

• you surely want to move away from the Gun Law of the old frontiers,
• perceive the danger is far less here than American scaremongers such as the NRA whine about over there.

Even the old frontiers were not as wild as is believed. And the NRA is not scaremongering. NRA Mission: To protect the Second Amendment right to bear arms, and to promote safe, responsible, and competent use of firearms.
Founded: In 1871, by a group of Union veterans of the American Civil War. The first NRA president was Ambrose Burnside; the eighth, Ulysses S. Grant. I was actually surprised to see that the organization is that old!

It seems obvious that people who fear another person is armed will be less inclined to attack. The stats will prove nothing but the obvious. However, you surely want to move away from the Gun Law of the old frontiers, where the survivor was right and the dead man was in the wrong, don't you.

Only recently, I discovered that the UK is more violent than USA or South Africa. Yet there is no real demand here for the right to carry guns or other weapons in public, and if there were a referendum, I bet a pound to a penny that the vote would be against. In fact, it is against the law to carry any offensive weapon in public.

OK, we might get hit with a bat, or knifed, but we perceive the danger is far less here than American scaremongers such as the NRA whine about over there.